Comparison of Isotonic Seawater Nasal Spray Containing Chamomile Liquid Extract and Other Isotonic Seawater Nasal Washing Solutions for Allergic Rhinitis

Abstract

Objective: We aim to demonstrate the effect of an isotonic seawater spray containing chamomile liquid extract on symptoms and nasal mucociliary clearance in patients with allergic rhinitis by comparing it with other isotonic seawater nasal washing solutions. Methods: The study included 123 patients. Based on Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma guidelines, mometasone furoate intranasal spray treatment was started for all patients in the group diagnosed with allergic rhinitis. In addition to this treatment, isotonic seawater spray with chamomile liquid extract was added to Group A, isotonic seawater spray to Group B, and isotonic seawater nasal irrigation to Group C. The fourth group (Group D) was given only nasal steroid spray without nasal washing treatment. Before and after treatment in all patients, the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 was performed, and nasal mucociliary clearance times were measured by the saccharin test. Results: The differences in duration of nasal mucociliary clearance and Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 values were taken before and after treatment. In Group A, B, C, and D the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 differences were statistically significant ( P ≤.001; P ≤ .001; P ≤ .001, and P = .048, respectively). Only Group A and Group B experienced a significant difference in nasal mucociliary clearance times ( P ≤ .001; P = .010, respectively). When the Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 score and nasal mucociliary clearance time differences before and after treatment were compared between all groups, the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 score difference was higher in Group A than in Groups B, C, and D, the differences were found as statistically significant ( P = .010; P = .003; P ≤ .001, respectively). The nasal mucociliary clearance time difference was higher in Group A than in Groups C and D, the differences were found as statistically significant ( P = .010; P = .001, respectively). Conclusion: Isotonic seawater spray containing chamomile liquid extract is seen as a good alternative treatment option for allergic rhinitis patients.

Effect of drying methods on yield, physicochemical properties, and total polyphenol content of chamomile extract powder

“…It is used to treat hay fever, inflammation, muscle spasms, menstrual disorders, insomnia ulcers, wounds, gastrointestinal disorders, rheumatic pain, and hemorrhoids ( Srivastava et al, 2010 ). A recent study has shown that presence of chamomile extract in the isotonic seawater spray served as a good alternative treatment option for patients with hay fever ( Atar et al, 2022 ). The main constituents contributing to chamomile’s therapeutic potential are terpenoids (chamazulene and bisabolol) and flavonoids (apigenin, luteolin, and quercetin) ( Kolanos and Stice, 2021 ).…”

Medicinal plants for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The main characteristics of the 29 included published articles are presented in S1-S3 Tables in S5 Appendix according to their PICO elements. Almost all [ 23 – 50 ] were conducted in adult populations while only one study [ 51 ] investigated the effects of medicinal plants among children. Of the 29 included studies, more than half reported a study duration of 28 days or longer.…”

“…Six studies [ 23 , 24 , 26 , 36 , 47 , 50 ] compared medicinal plants and conventional treatment combined against conventional treatment only.…”

“…(b) Sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT-22) . Pooled estimates from four studies [ 23 , 26 , 36 , 50 ] showed that those treated with medicinal plants combined with standard treatment may have significantly better SNOT-22 scores (98 participants) compared to conventional treatment alone (89 participants) (MD -8.61, 95% CI -14.74 to -2.74; participants = 187; studies = 4; I 2 = 64%) but the evidence is very uncertain. These studies were considered to have high heterogeneity ( Fig 12 ).…”

“…There is substantial heterogeneity, as shown by the I 2 of 64%. All four studies investigated different medicinal plants, two [ 36 , 50 ] administered the herbal intervention intranasally. The standard treatment (comparator) was also different for all three studies.…”